Case law

Lyndel Toppin - Adversary Proceeding

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2021

therefore diverges from the Williams court’s holding with respect to what constitutes a ministerial act and finds that the Sheriff’s Office’s post-petition actions in enforcing the CCP Court’s wit of possession do not qualify … In order to recover emotional distress damages for willful violation of the automatic stay, a party must (1) have suffered significant emotional distress, (2) clearly establish the significant emotional distress; and (3

Matter of River Landings, Inc.

180 B.R. 701 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia · Apr 4, 1995

Applying this standard to the present case, it is clear that this Chapter 11 debtor required highly qualified and experienced counsel beyond that required for basic legal services. Ms. … Horne clearly possesses these qualities.

Federal Trade Commission v. Austin (In Re Austin)

138 B.R. 898 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 7, 1992

The Stipulation for Judgment clearly establishes that Austin made false representations. … As discussed above, the evidence in this case clearly establishes that Austin made false representations in the sale of certain artworks.

Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. Wathen's Elevators, Inc. (In Re Wathen's Elevators, Inc.)

32 B.R. 912 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky · Sep 13, 1983

However, because these open-credit sellers dealt with an insolvent buyer, they clearly have an additional legal right, reclamation as provided by Sec. 2-702(2) of the UCC. C. … Our pivotal point is whether a secured creditor may qualify as a good faith purchaser with rights superior to a reclaimant.

In Re J.M v. Inc.

90 B.R. 737 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1988

This limited requirement of disclosure as a condition of invoking the privilege clearly poses some danger to the interests the privilege is designed to protect. … Contrary to the position taken by counsel to Vetri in his initial submission, the trustee has no obligation to seek immunity for Vetri pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 344 and 18 U.S.C. § 6003 as a prerequisite to a motion to compel

QUILES AVILES

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 1, 2015

The First 8 Circuit considered that “none of the enumerated sections in § 106(a)(1) that apply directly (§§ 9 105, 524) or by analogy (§ 362) clearly established the availability, even against private parties, 10 of … . §§ 105 and 524 [] did not ‘clearly establish[] the availability, even 17 against private parties, of an award of emotional distress damages.’”

Delange v. Tsikouris (In Re Tsikouris)

340 B.R. 604 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 30, 2006

These were devices by which the state sought to establish and enforce a lien in the proceeds, the better to collect them securely. … The foregoing clearly establishes that the Seventh Circuit has not analyzed the liability of an individual for unpaid "employer component” obligations to an ERISA-qualified employee benefit plan under the "fiduciary” principles

In Re North County Chrysler Plymouth, Inc.

13 B.R. 393 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · Aug 24, 1981

The auctioneer clearly had no responsibility for the paying of North County’s debts from the proceeds of the sale. … The order clearly related to the auction proceeds as debtor was selling assets of the business, not sales in the usual course.

Pineo v. Fulton (In Re Fulton)

240 B.R. 854 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 1999

Such a possibility, however, is clearly not afforded by the language of Pennsylvania's § 8124(b)(l)(ix) because said statutory provision never once speaks of, or refers to, a trust. 10 .The IRAs at issue in Houck and Martich … by an employer for its employee under an employer-established plan.

In Re Dale

252 B.R. 430 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 25, 2000

Death benefits under qualifying plans create a different but equally difficult problem. … Clearly, Congress could have found a far more simple way of ensuring that an exemption of future retirement benefits not be abused.

Town of Skaneateles v. Scott (In Re Scott)

233 B.R. 32 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Oct 19, 1998

The evidence does not clearly indicate whether Debtor in fact spent the night at the motor home on June 16th and 17th. … In the present case, the damages awarded to the Town by Justice Pooler are clearly in the nature of compensation for pecuniary loss.

Patterson v. Matyac (In Re Matyac)

102 B.R. 125 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · May 15, 1989

However, while a divorce decree may label a particular obligation as support, it is well established that the nature of the obligation is determined by federal bankruptcy law. Singer v. … Therefore, any child support owing, but unpaid, from the entry of the divorce decree until the commencement of the defendant’s bankruptcy case qualifies as support under the second prong of the Calhoun test.

Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Haberman (In Re Haberman)

137 B.R. 292 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 5, 1992

Levine involved an Eleventh Amendment immunity issue, not an attorney disciplinary proceeding. … Payment of costs clearly falls within the second type of discipline as one form of condition for seeking reinstatement of the license to practice law.

In Re Gray

64 B.R. 505 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 15, 1986

Although such a result may seem harsh in some circumstances, this case is clearly not one of them. … Finally, the facts here establish a classic case of violation of Bankruptcy Rule 9011(a).

Roost v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (In Re Boyer)

212 B.R. 975 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Sep 18, 1997

BAP 1994) the court held that a security interest which was perfected outside the 10 day grace period 4 (in that case the 12th day) did not qualify for the enabling loan defense provided under § 547(c)(3). … In some instances, the period of time could be as short as 17 days, clearly abridging rights provided by Congress in enacting § 547(e)(3).

Heidkamp v. Fifth Third Bank (In Re Heidkamp)

334 B.R. 713 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 26, 2005

While a corporation or partnership may qualify for appointment as a panel trustee under the minimum qualification requirements, “[n]o professional corporation, partnership, or similar entity organized for the practice of … Fifth Third’s letters have clearly violated the automatic stay.

Turner v. Talbert (In Re Talbert)

347 B.R. 804 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Louisiana · May 24, 2005

If each element of Rule 23(a) is satisfied, Plaintiffs must then establish that at least one of the elements of Rule 23(b) is satisfied. 1. … Also, the Court is satisfied that the named Plaintiffs will “vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.”

In Re Holstine

458 B.R. 392 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 11, 2011

If a benefit qualifies for exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522 (d)(10), one-hundred percent of the benefit is exempt. 2 . … The decision is clearly at odds with Congress’ intent to permit the recipient of a workers’ compensation award to retain sufficient funds to avoid destitution.

In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc.

151 B.R. 684 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Feb 19, 1993

The case before us is clearly distinguishable from Berry because Drexel has many creditors. Allowing Comptroller’s claim would impact adversely on innocent creditors. … A separate bar date was established for customer claims.

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Territo (In Re Territo)

32 B.R. 377 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Aug 24, 1983

The defendant argues that the reference to insurance found in section 9-306(1) clearly establishes that only proceeds from a contract for insurance for that vehicle are intended to be deemed “proceeds” under the statute. … Territo’s injury appears to be substantial enough to qualify as a personal injury under this limited definition.